MANOJ TIN CONTAINERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India arises out of the following facts :

(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, we have come to the conclusion that the petition deserves to be allowed.

(3.) AS stated above, it is not disputed that the petitioner was not liable to pay the excise duty for the goods cleared by him between 10-5-76 and 8-11-76 and that the said amount was liable to be refunded to it. It is not the case of the respondents that while claiming the refund of the amount of duty so paid by the petitioner, the petitioner mis-represented any facts. The petitioner applied for the amount of excise duty which was not liable to be paid by it after the decision of the earlier show cause notice in which it was held that the petitioner was exempt from duty under the Notification No. 97/70. All the facts were known to the respondent No. 2 when he passed the order for the refund of the amount of Rs. 8,547. 45 which was paid by the petitioner as excise duty between 10-5-1976 and 8-11-1976. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the refund was erroneously granted to the petitioner and, therefore, the respondent No. 2 had no jurisdiction to issue the notice (Annexure 'a') asking the petitioner to show cause why the petitioner be not required to repay the said amount which was refunded to it.